INDRODUCTION
The claim that Muslims do not understand the term 'Son of God' is a tired argument indeed. This topic has been in discussion for quite some time. In Silas' article, he states: "Many Muslims do not understand what the term 'son of God' means according to Christian theology" However I will address the meaning of the term "Son of God" in the context in the monotheistic understanding.

THE TERM 'SON OF GOD' IN A MONOTHEISTIC SENSE
In the Tenach, the term 'Son of God' does speak of divine sonship. Usually it is in conjunction with three specific groups of people (1) angels (cf. Gen6:2; Job 1:6; Dan 3:25), (2) Israel (cf. Ex 4:22,23; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) (3) and the King Sam (cf. 7:14; Ps 2:7; 89:26,27). One of the most famous verses that illustrate this special relationship is "You are the children of the LORD your God. (Deu 14:1). The sonship in reference to Israel means belonging in a special way to the Almighty God. Jewish Tradition refer to God as 'Avinu, Malkanu' meaning 'our father', 'our king' and such a metaphor describes the close relationship between Israel and God which is akin to how a father loves his son. God loves the just, and his love cannot be destroyed by sin. The King also in his capacity as a son of God exercises authority over both the people of Israel and the nations and as such is restricted to the descendants of David. It is quite clear that the Jewish term does not speak explicitly of the Messiah or of a specifically messianic figure as Son of God. This seems generally to be the case in post-biblical Palestinian Judaism as well. In the Talmud, miracle workers were sometimes described as 'sons of God'. The notion of a Son of God with specific reference to the Messiah really comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls 1QSa 2:1112 could be read in terms of God begetting the Messiah; and 4QpsDan Aa (=4Q246) is reported to read "he shall be hailed as the Son of God, and they shall call him Son of the most High" Here again, let me reiterate that the reference here reflects the notion of sonship as a "king" of the Davidic line. Christianity with its borrowing of Philo's concept, the "Logos" became a hypostasis of God' in this world. Such a notion was not foreign to the Greek, Roman and Egyptian notions, since Greek and Egyptian mythology where the gods often impregnated mortal women, e.g., Zeus "fathering" Hercules and so on. As mentioned in Andrews Norton's book, 'A Translation of the Gospels':

"Here may be explained the title 'Son of God' as applied to Christ. The Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (1:5) quotes the words, which God in the Old Testament is represented to have used for Solomon, as applicable to Christ: 'I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.' By these words was meant that God would distinguish Solomon with peculiar favors, would treat him as a father treats a son, and they are to be understood in a similar manner when applied to Christ. 'We beheld' says St. John in his Gospel (1:14), 'his glory like that of an only son from a father,' that is  we beheld the glorious powers and offices conferred upon him, by which he was distinguished from all others, as an only son is distinguished by his father. It is in reference to this analogy, and probably, I think to this very passage in his Gospels, that St. John elsewhere calls Christ 'the only Son of God', a title applied to him by no other writer of the New Testament."

Here we have the term son of God being presented as a special relationship between the son and the father. It is a historical fact that the Israelites had borrowed from the Canaanite heathenism the expression 'sons of God' but used it only as a symbolic expression' to denote those qualities which recommend moral beings to the favor of God; those which bear such a likeness to his moral attributes as may be compared with the likeness which a son has to his father' those which constitute one, in the Oriental (Eastern) style, to be of the family of God. In which the misrepresentation of Jesus as a literal Son of God is a pagan cult gross error. The Israelites were created by God and as such symbolically might be called His 'children', not literally. Nevertheless, the pagan concept of son of God as we have mentioned, contributed to the corruption of the Abrahamic faith. Even among the Essenes of the Qumran community who considered themselves to be the true followers of Abraham and Moses, had the belief in supernatural powers of a coming Messiah. In John Allegro's book 'The Dead Sea Scrolls', he points out that in a Qumran scroll dealing with the Jewish notion of the re-establishment of the  Kingdom of David in the last days, the prophecy of II Samuel 7:13-15 'I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever, I will be his father and he will be my son.' Allegro goes on to say:

"We appear then, to have in Qumran thought already the idea of the lay Messiah as the Son of God, 'begotton' of the father a 'saviour' in Israel. At the same time we nowhere approach the 'christology of Paul in the scrolls, of the kind of Divinity accorded to Jesus by the Greek church."

Also in MA Yussef's book 'The Scrolls, The Gospel of Barnabas, and New Testament' he mentions the same discovery:

"Finally, we find that the Essenes of Qumran nowhere press the erroneous notion of a divinely begotton Son-Messiah on a Co-Existent Holy Spirit to the Gnostic doctrine of a trinitarian godhead as was dont by the Nicolatians."

THE TERM 'SON OF GOD' IN PAGAN/GNOSTIC SENSE
In the ancient world of pagan thought, there were two chief forms of dualism, both of which contributed to the doctrines of the Nicolaitans. The first Pagan belief to be consisderd here comes from the Hermes Trismegisos 'the thrice-great Hermes', the Greek title for Thoth, the ancient Egyptian god of wisdom. In this system of belief, the sun was regarded as the creator. By the word sun, the expositors and philosophers adhering to the Hermetic system of beliefs maintained that the latent cause of all creation, vegetation, and motion was the solar fire, as mentioned in Acharya's book Sons of god we see a solar core or worship:

"Thus we discover from some of the more erudite Christian writers, admitting against interest, that images of a god crucified - with nail holes in hands and feet, a side wound, and a sacred heart - had been discovered in India, in particular by the pious Christian Moor, and that this god was considered to be Krishna, as Wittoba. As we have seen, Moor's book was mutilated, with the plates and an entire chapter removed. Unfortunately, Dr. Inman's Ancient Faiths, from which Doane took his quote, was another of those books apparently targeted for mutilation: The copy we used had the pertinent pages on the virgin birth and the crucifixion torn out of them. Furthermore, J.P. Lundy's Monumental Christianity was evidently stolen from the library we used; hence, another copy of this most enlightening book had to be obtained, from a library 1,000 miles away. Another of these missing books was Dean Henry Milman's History of Christianity, which contains similar information. Fortunately, Higgins preserved for posterity some of Moor's statements and plates, recountng and commenting upon the missionary's remarkable discovery:

Mr. Moor describes an Avatar called Wittoba, who has his foot pierced....

This incarnation of Vishnu or CRISTNA is called Wittoba or Ballaji. He has a splendid temple erected to him at Punderpoor. Little respecting this incarnation is known. A story of him is detailed by Mr. Moor, which he observes reminds him of the doctrine of turning the unsmote cheek to an assailant. This God is represented by Moor with a hole on the top of one foot just above the toes, where the nail of a person crucified might be supposed to be placed. And, in another print, he is represented exactly in the form of a Romish crucifix, but not fixed to a piece of wood, though the legs and feet are put together in the usual way, with a nail-hole in the latter. There appears to be a glory over it coming from above. Generally the glory shines from the figure. It has a pointed Parthian coronet instead of a crown of thorns....

In the images provided by Moor we possess representations of an Indian god, Wittoba/Krishna, in cruciform, with nail holes. The image of the godman crucified without the wood, "in space," can also be found reproduced in Lundy's book, wherein he asserts that it is indeed non-Christian, to wit uninfluenced by Christianity and representing an older tradition of a crucified god. With this transcendent cruciform of the deity and others in mind, Higgins continues his intriguing detective tale:

... I cannot help suspecting, that it is from this Avatar of Cristna that the sect of Christians heretics got their Christ crucified in the clouds.

Long after the above was written, I accidentally looked into Moor's Pantheon, at the British Museum, where it appears that the copy is an earlier impression than the former which I had consulted: and I discovered something which Mr. Moor has apparently not dared to tell us, viz. that in several of the icons of Wittoba, there are marks of holes in both feet, and in others, of holes in the hands. In the first copy which I consulted, the marks are very faint, so as to be scarcely visible. In figures 4 and 5 of plate 11, the figures have nail-holes in both feet. Fig. 3 has a hole in one hand. Fig. 6 has on his side the mark of a foot, and a little lower in the side a round hole; to his collar or shirt hangs the ornament or emblem of a heart, which we generally see in Romish pictures of Christ; on his head he has an Yoni-Linga. In plate 12, and in plate 97, he has a round mark in the palm of the hand....

Figure 1, plate 91, of Moor's Pantheon, is a Hanuman, but it is remarkable that it has a hole in one foot, a nail through the other, a round nail mark in the palm of one hand and on the knuckle of the other, and is ornamented with doves...

It is unfortunate, perhaps it has been thought prudent, that the originals are not in the Museum to be examined. But it is pretty clear that the Romish and Protestant crucifixion of Jesus must have been taken from the Avatar of Ballaji, or the Avatar of Ballaji from it, or both from a common mythos.

As Higgins relates, Moor was compelled by Christian zealots not to publish the volume intact. Elaborating on Higgins's contentions regarding Christian mutilation of documents, Graves says:

[Higgins] informs us that a report on the Hindoo religion, made out by a deputation from the British Parliament sent to India for the purpose of examining their sacred books and monuments, being left in the hands of a Christian bishop at Calcutta, and with instructions to forward it to England, was found, on its arrival in London, to be so horribly mutilated and eviscerated as to be scarcely cognizable. The account of the crucifixion was gone--cancelled out.

In recounting his experiences in India regarding the images he subsequently used as plates in his book, the missionary Moor states, "A man, who was in the habit of bringing me Hindu deities, pictures, etc., once brought me two images exactly alike." Moor's self-appointed, post-mortem censor, Rev. Simpson, notes at this point that these images were of a crucifix. Simpson then comments, "The subject, a crucifix, is omitted in the present edition, for very obvious reasons." In other words, the crucifix image was removed so it would not offend good Christian sensibilities. In fact, it apparently would serve as evidence that the crucified savior god motif predated Christianity and was found in "heathen" nations.

Moor continues his story concerning the presentation to him of the crucifix images:

Affecting indifference, I inquired of my Pandit what Deva it was: he examined it attentively, and, after turning it about for some time, returned it to me, professing his ignorance of what Avatara it could immediately relate to; but supposed by the hole in the foot, that it might be Wittoba, adding that it was impossible to recollect the almost innumerable Avataras described in the Puranas.

The subject [of plate 98] is evidently the crucifixion; and, by the style of workmanship is clearly of European origin, as is proved also by its being in duplicate. These crucifixes have been introduced into India, I suppose, by Christian missionaries, and are, perhaps, used in Popish churches and societies...

This quote is taken from the later edition of Moor's book (Simpson's), in which the plate had been removed. Moor thus claimed the image was originally Christian, introduced into India. As noted, Higgins - whom Rev. Taylor calls a "sincere Christian" - does not concur with Moor's conclusions that the crucifix image with the coronet is of "European origin." He argues thus:

This God is represented by Moor with a hole on the top of one foot just above the toes, where the nail of a person crucified might be supposed to be placed. And, in another print, he is represented exactly in the form of a Romish crucifix, but not fixed to a piece of wood, though the legs and feet are put together in the usual way, with a nail-hole in the latter. There appears to be a glory [halo] over it coming from above. Generally the glory shines from the figure. It has a pointed Parthian coronet instead of a crown of thorns. I apprehend this is totally unusual in our crucifixes....

All the Avatars or incarnations of Vishnu are painted with Ethiopian or Parthian coronets. Now, in Moor's Pantheon, the Avatar of Wittoba is thus painted; but Christ on the cross, though often described with a glory, I believe is never described with the Coronet. This proves that the figure described in Moor's Pantheon is not a Portugues crucifix....

...Mr. Moor endeavours to prove that this crucifix cannot be Hindoo, because there are duplicates of it from the same mould, and he contends that Hindoos can only make one cast from one mould, the mould being made of clay. But he ought to have deposited the two specimens where they could have been examined, to ascertain that they were duplicates. Besides, how does he know that the Hindoos, who are so ingenious, had not the very simple art of making casts from the brass figure, as well as clay moulds from the one of wax? Nothing could be more easy. The crucified body without the cross of wood reminds me that some of the ancient sects of heretics held Jesus to have been crucified in the clouds....

I very much suspect that it is from some story unknown, or kept out of sight, relating to this Avatar [Wittoba], that the ancient heretics alluded to before obtained their tradition of Jesus having been crucified in the clouds.... I therefore think it must remain a Wittoba....

That nothing more is known respecting this Avatar, I cannot help suspecting may be attributed to the same kind of feeling which induced Mr. Moor's friend to wish him to remove this print from his book. The innumerable pious frauds of which Christian priests stand convicted, and the principle of the expediency of fraud admitted to have existed by Mosheim, are perfect justification of my suspicions respecting the concealment of the history of this Avatar: especially as I can find no Wittobas in any of the collections. I repeat, I cannot help suspecting, that it is from this Avatar of Cristna that the sect of Christian heretics got their Christ crucified in the clouds.

As we have seen, Lundy also argued, no doubt reluctantly, that this same god Indian crucified in the clouds was pre-Christian, repeatedly demonstrating from "'sculptures on the walls of ancient temples, from monuments, inscriptions, and other archaic relics' that, among other things, Krishna was 'crucified in space,' as he calls it..." Regarding this Indian "crucified man in space," Lundy remarks:

There is a most extraordinary plate, illustrative of the whole subject, which representation I believe to be anterior to Christianity. (See Fig. 72.) It is copied from Moor's Hindu Pantheon, not as a curiosity, but as a most singular monument of the crucifixion. I do not venture to give it a name, other than that of a crucifixion in space. It looks like a Christian crucifix in many respects, and in some others it does not. The drawing, the attitude, and the nail-marks in hands and feet, indicate a Christian origin; while the Parthian coronet of seven points, the absence of wood and of the usual inscription, and the rays of glory above, would seem to point to some other than a Christian origin. Can it be the Victim-Man, or the Priest and Victim both in one, of the Hindu mythology, who offered himself a sacrifice before the worlds were? Can it be Plato's Second God who impressed himself on the universe in the form of the cross? Or is it his divine man who would be scourged, tormented, fettered, have his eyes burnt out; and lastly, having suffered all manner of evils, would be crucified? Plato learned his theology in Egypt and the East, and must have known of the crucifixion of Krishna, Buddha, Mithra, etc. At any rate, the religion of India had its mythical crucified victim long anterior to Christianity, as a type of the real one, and I am inclined to think that we have it in this remarkable plate....

As regards Plato's Second God, Lundy cites the Greek philosopher's "Republic, c. II, p. 52. Spens' Trans. "Lundy's decisive assertions regarding the crucifixion of Indian gods, as well as the "mythical crucified victim long anterior to Christianity, as a type of the real one," are more than noteworthy. Throughout his book, Lundy strains himself with this "type of" argumentation, because he simply cannot deny--and maintain his honesty and integrity--that there were numerous correspondences between pre-Christian Paganism and Christianity. Indeed, in his extensive defense of Christianity, Lundy, a more pious Christian could not be found, repeatedly acknowledges that virtually every salient point of Christianity is to be found in earlier "Pagan" religions:

The ancient Christian monuments, from which I have drawn my facts and illustrations, reveal so many obvious adaptations from the Pagan mythology and art, that it became necessary for me to investigate anew the Pagan symbolism: and this will account for the frequent comparisons instituted, and the parallels drawn between Christianity and Paganism. Many of the Pagan symbols, therefore, are necessarily used in this work--such, for instance, as seem to be types of Christian verities, like Agni, Krishna, Mithra, Horus, Apollo, and Orpheus. Hence I have drawn largely from the most ancient Pagan religions of India, Chaldea, Persia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, and somewhat from the old Aztec religion of Mexico. These religions were all, indeed, systems of idolatry, perversions and corruptions of the one primeval truth as held by such patriarchs as Abraham and Job; and yet these religions contained germs of this truth which it became the province of Christianity to develop and embody in a purer system for the good of mankind.

It is a most singular and astonishing fact sought to be developed in this work, that the Christian faith, as embodied in the Apostles' Creed, finds its parallel, or dimly foreshadowed counterpart, article by article, in the different systems of Paganism here brought under review. No one can be more astonished at this than the author himself. It reveals a unity of religion, and shows that the faith of mankind has been essentially one and the same in all ages. It furthermore points to but one Source and Author. Religion, therefore, is no cunningly devised fable of Priest-craft, but it is rather the abiding conviction of all mankind, as given by man's Maker.

With this type of reasoning, Lundy tries to make a distinction between Paganism and Christianity, while admitting that Christianity "borrowed" from Paganism. Unlike modern apologists, who seem quite unaware of the erudite works of Lundy and so many other leading Christians of the past two to three centuries, Lundy does not dare deny that Christianity is founded upon Paganism; yet, he claims that the former is superior, because it represents "religion," while the latter is "mythology." In his sophistic argumentation, Lundy cites the cases of primitive peoples:

Two illustrations, in what is called savage life, may serve to express more clearly the difference between mythology and religion. Paul Macroy informs us in his book of Travels in South America, one of the most remarkable journeys of modern times for its curious information, that the Mesaya Indians of the river Japura, cannibals out of revenge, eating only their hereditary enemies, the Miranhas, but whose last cannibal war-feast was held in 1846, and who have only mathematical capacity enough to count as far as three, have yet a well-defined religion, consisting in the belief of a Supreme Being, the Creator and Moving Power of the universe, whom they fear to name, and whose attributes are power, intelligence and love. The visible manifestation of this God, curiously enough, is the bird bueque, a charming warbler, with a gold and green back and a bright red breast... The dove is still a survival of this visible symbol or manifestation of god as Spirit in our Christianity, and we may not therefore smile at this Mesaya notion of the bueque as God's visible representative....

Lundy then goes on to compare unfavorably another primitive "savage" tribe, the Yuracares, who "neither adore nor respect any deity, and yet are more superstitious than all their neighbours." Nevertheless, as Lundy explains, the Yuracares do possess a variety of gods. Now, as this learned Christian apologist is certainly not unintelligent, it cannot be suggested that he himself could not see the paradoxes in his various statements; yet, again, he exerts every effort in creating a difference between mythology and "true religion," without much success. Also, it is somewhat ironic that Lundy is compelled to use as examples savages, including--as proof of his assertion of the superiority of "religion," as he attempts to define it--a group notorious for the brutality and atrocity of cannibalism. After apparently considering himself successful in thus distinguishing between mythology and religion, Lundy triumphantly remarks:

Religion, then, differs from the myth in being the product of the reason and understanding rather than the imagination.

Evidently, Lundy considers the beliefs of these savage cannibals to be the "product of reason and understanding!" Furthermore, in page after page of comparison between Paganism and Christianity, the Reverend shows that the Christian imagination could not have been more overworked in its creation of myth, ritual and dogma.Also it should be noted observed that the father(god) and the son(of of god) constantly melt into one" the reason being that there was a fabled incarnation of the son, who, although indentified with him, was yet said to be his son by the goddess mother. Hence being the father of this supposed incarnation of himself, he was naturally sometimes confused with the original father of the gods, the result of which was the both father and son were sometimes called by the same name."

If this is the case then was Jesus charged with being the son of God or something else. First of all it must be mentioned that Jesus claim to be the Messiah was not in any way blasphemous in the eyes of the Pharisees or, indeed, of any other Jews, For the title 'Messiah' carried no connotation of deity or divinty. The word Messiah simply means 'anointed one', and it is a title of kingship, every Jewish king of the Davidic dynasty had this title. To Claim to be Messiah mean "The king of Israel". Such a title was a threat to the Roman occupation. The biblical story of Jesus being charged with calling himself "God" or the "son of God' is a mere passive way for the gentile church to develop their solar tale. In conclusion to this, I would like to say that Muhammed (p) clearly knew the pagan concept of son of god, and made a distinction between the two terms:

"Surely they lie when they declare: "Allah has begotten children".-- Holy Quran

"They say, "Allah hath begotten a son!" Glory be to Him! He is Self-Sufficient! His are all things in the heavens and on earth"--Holy Quran

As Rabbi Michael Samuel puts it: "The early Christian fathers misuderstood what sonship meant in Judaism. They forgot that the Torah sees all of God's people as His beloved children. Rather than looking to Jesus as a great example, they instead made him the great exception and in doing so, severed its roots from historic Judaism. Judaism has always taught that we do not worship God through intermediaries. The rest is commentary. I believe that Jesus himself never intended to imply that only he was "the son of God" If anything, he taught that all people are beloved as God's children, and that this is a basic truth we ought never to forget."

Insha-Allah this article will help Silas and the answering-islam team understand the context of 'Son of God. Allah knows best

"There is nothing whatever like Him" - Holy Quran